Refusal to Confess Isn't Non-Cooperation; Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Denied as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-07-02

HP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Bank Officials, Rules Refusal to Confess is Not Non-Cooperation

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on anticipatory bail, has granted pre-arrest bail to five Canara Bank officials accused of forgery and cheating. Justice Virender Singh affirmed that bail cannot be denied as a form of pre-trial punishment, and an accused's refusal to confess does not amount to non-cooperation with an investigation.

The court made these observations while making absolute the interim bail granted to bank officials Ravi B. , Navjot , Siddharth Srivastava, Ravinder Kumar Agarwal, and Suman Jain in a case involving allegations of fabricating loan guarantee documents.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an FIR lodged on January 29, 2025, by Dinesh Singhal , a partner in M/s Vishwakarma Technoforge . The complainant alleged that the accused bank officials, while enhancing the firm's credit limit, forged guarantee documents to inflate the liability of the guarantors.

The firm's credit limit was enhanced from ₹85 lakhs to ₹3 crores. The complainant and his new partner, Arpit Mittal , alleged that they and the guarantors (Arpit's parents) were made to sign blank forms. They contended that the guarantee was meant only for the enhanced amount of ₹2.15 crores. However, when the firm's account turned into a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), the bank initiated recovery proceedings for a much larger sum of ₹3,61,65,000, allegedly using forged documents showing a consolidated liability.

Arguments from Both Sides

Prosecution and Complainant's Arguments: The prosecution, represented by the Additional Advocate General, and the counsel for the complainant argued that the applicants were high-ranking bank officials who had committed a serious economic offence by forging guarantee documents. They contended that such offences shake the public's faith in the banking system and must be dealt with stringently.

Applicants' (Bank Officials) Arguments: Represented by Senior Advocate Shrawan Dogra , the applicants maintained their innocence, claiming they were falsely implicated. They argued that the FIR was a tactic to arm-twist the bank and settle a financial dispute. They asserted that they had joined the investigation whenever required, and all relevant documents, being part of the bank's records, were already in police custody. They submitted that there was no need for their custodial interrogation.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

Justice Virender Singh , in his judgment, laid down several key principles for granting anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of economic offences. The court found that the police had not made a case for custodial interrogation.

In none of the status reports, the prayer for custodial interrogation has been made by the I.O. nor the learned Additional Advocate General, as well as, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, insisted for custodial interrogation and in the absence of cogent reasons for custodial interrogation, the bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law.

The Court drew a crucial distinction between non-cooperation and the refusal to self-incriminate, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah versus Kamal Dayani & Others . The judgment noted that an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, a right protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

"We are of the firm opinion that non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime..."

The court also referenced the landmark judgment of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others versus State of Punjab , reinforcing that the object of anticipatory bail is to strike a balance between individual liberty and the rights of police to investigate.

Final Decision

Finding no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicants to judicial custody, the High Court made the interim bail absolute. The five bank officials were ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest, upon furnishing personal bonds of ₹50,000 each with one surety.

The bail is subject to conditions, including cooperating with the investigation, not leaving India without court permission, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and attending all trial court hearings. The court clarified that its observations are limited to the disposal of the bail applications and will not influence the merits of the case during trial.